Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4,695 questions · 4,979 findings · 433 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 998 · 20%GRADE not reported 1,140 · 22.9%Very low 1,024 · 20.6%Low 1,029 · 20.7%Moderate 636 · 12.8%High 152 · 3.1%

Topical corticosteroids vs Another topical agent or placebo

Healing of ulceration · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Antiseptic mouthwash (e.g. chlorhexidine) vs Another topical agent or placebo

Healing of ulceration · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Topical corticosteroids vs Another topical agent or placebo

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Antiseptic mouthwash (e.g. chlorhexidine) vs Another topical agent or placebo

Incidence and recurrence after healing of ulcers · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Topical corticosteroids vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Topical corticosteroids vs Another topical agent or placebo

Incidence and recurrence after healing of ulcers · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

5 mg vs 10 mg

All studies · patients with the initiation of oral anticoagulation

It is very uncertain whether 5 mg changes all studies compared with 10 mg (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Optimal loading dose of warfarin for the initiation of oral anticoagulation 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.17 [0.77, 1.77]
4 studies · 352 participants
Very low

5 mg vs 10 mg

Single INR measure · patients with the initiation of oral anticoagulation

It is very uncertain whether 5 mg changes single INR measure compared with 10 mg (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Optimal loading dose of warfarin for the initiation of oral anticoagulation 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.49 [1.01, 2.21]
2 studies · 250 participants
Very low

5 mg vs 10 mg

Consecutive INR measures · patients with the initiation of oral anticoagulation

It is very uncertain whether 5 mg changes consecutive INR measures compared with 10 mg (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Optimal loading dose of warfarin for the initiation of oral anticoagulation 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.86 [0.62, 1.19]
2 studies · 102 participants
Very low

Topical thalidomide vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

HAART regimen + topical treatment vs HAART alone

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

HAART regimen + topical treatment vs HAART alone

Incidence and recurrence after healing of ulcers · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Antiseptic mouthwash (e.g. chlorhexidine) vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Topical thalidomide vs Another topical agent or placebo

Healing of ulceration · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatments for HIV‐related oral ulcers 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
0 studies
No studies found

Mixed beam (neutron and photon) radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Mixed beam (neutron and photon) radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
HR 1.04 [0.84, 1.29]
1 study · 327 participants
GRADE not reported

Hypnosis vs control (e.g. usual activities)

Daily mean opiate intake per hour · People with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or both) who have oral mucositis

Hypnosis showed no clear difference in daily mean opiate intake per hour compared with control (treatment as usual); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -0.45 [-4.42, 3.52]
1 study · 22 participants
GRADE not reported

Debridement vs no debridement

Mucositis severity (mild to moderate) · People with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or both) who have oral mucositis

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
Debridement vs no debridement (Cubukcu 2007): statistically significant benefit for decreased mucositis severity; no numeric estimate reported
1 study
GRADE not reported

Hypnosis vs control (e.g. usual activities)

Average pain scores (0-100 VAS) · People with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or both) who have oral mucositis

Hypnosis showed no clear difference in average pain scores (0-100 VAS) compared with control (treatment as usual); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -10.50 [-36.05, 15.05]
1 study · 22 participants
GRADE not reported

Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated) vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Hyperfractionated/accelerated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
HR 0.84 [0.72, 0.99]
4 studies · 1071 participants
GRADE not reported
Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
HR 0.79 [0.70, 0.89]
11 studies
GRADE not reported

Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
Accelerated/boost vs conventional, locoregional control: IPD from one trial (Fu 2000); a statistically significant difference in favour of the accelerated schedule with boost was shown (Analysis 1.2). No numeric…
1 study
GRADE not reported